They're registered in China with fake names and addresses. Which do you think is easier to shut down? Instead, Blizzard seems to try to focus on user education and handing out authenticators to stop the phishing.
No. You can download the WoW client for free without paying for it. If someone won't cough up the $15 a month what the hell makes you think they'll pay $50 for a game box?
And it doesn't have to be a "civil right" to get paid to make it the right thing morally and ethically to pay for a product or service. Plus this is a civil case anyway, there are no guns involved. You're either an idiot or trolling. Or both.
Even if you pretend the EULA/TOS don't exist (which explicitly state that you only have license to use the client with Blizzard's servers), Scapegaming still used WoW's name, branding, characters, graphics, etc. to advertise their servers. That alone is probably enough to justify copyright/trademark infringement just from their webpage. Add in the fact that they made a few million dollars from this infringement, and you have a legit case regardless if you believe people should be allowed to run private servers or not.
There are plenty of hardcore raiders who raid because the raid game is fun, and not because they have an inferiority complex. Those ones stick around, but could hardly be considered "casual".
The game was less fun with a flashlight mod, for me. That's all I need to know. Weapon switching was a fun part of the game for me. Reloading and making certain weapons more or less ideal for certain situations was another aspect that became more important later in the game when you had more weapons. I thought that overall the game's combat was pretty good, and for me that's the most important part of an FPS.
For example, I never really understood why people love Half-life 1/2 so much because I don't think its combat is that great.
This is really really easy to disprove on modern hardware. Open 3 instances of Quake 3. Set them all to windowed mode and a small enough resolution to be visible at the same time. Set com_maxfps to 24/40/60 (or whatever values you want) in each window. Enable vsync. Run "demo four" and watch. Even better, call in someone who doesn't normally play video games and ask them to watch without telling them about the settings and ask them which one looks best.
64 bit is perfectly backwards compatible with 32 bit. If there's no advantage to making a 64 bit build, why bother? It's just more QA time for no reason, and possibly more support time later on.
It's not like a story not appearing on Digg removes it from the internet. I don't know anyone who only visits a single news aggregation site and doesn't go anywhere else for their information. If Digg's system sucks and is easily abused, people will just stop visiting Digg and visit another website. It seems like people are making a way bigger deal out of this than they should. Probably more people use Digg for retarded shit like cat pictures than for political news, anyway.
You're misunderstanding the issue, then. Say your 2nd window needs 5% of your GPU's total processing power. SC2 requires maybe 65% to render that cut scene at 60 FPS, but can scale up to 100% and just render unseen frames to give you 200 FPS (or whatever). What's going to happen is your desktop is going to get its 5% just fine, and SC2 is going to use the other 95% and render say 190 FPS. The point being, SC2 is only gobbling up the UNUSED clock cycles/cores/RAM/whatever from the GPU to render those extra frames, therefore any other applications should not see any performance loss. This is exactly how a properly written piece of software should behave. You should only *notice* the performance degrade in SC2 or your other apps once your other apps need more than 45% of the GPU (at which point SC2 or the other apps would start dipping under 60 FPS, or whatever the desired level of performance was).
If SC2 did always attempt to use 100% of the GPU regardless of other apps (which it does not) then you would be correct and it would be a problem.
Unfortunately, due to the fact that single player was not tested in beta, no default cap was set for cut scenes, which is apparently the source of the problem now. Either way, see the hundred other replies pointing out that it's a hardware issue being exposed by software, and not technically a software issue.
This SAR value is a completely imagined hazard. Listing it only serves to confuse consumers who do not have a technical understanding of what the value means. It sets a poor precedence that it's OK to force companies to list imagined hazards on their products in addition to real hazards. The list of imagined hazards is infinite. I really don't need my new phone to have a label on it stating that 99.9999% of phones do not contain a deadly cobra.
Think about your statement. If you have to list not only all the real, but additionally all the imagined hazards, or not just the contents, but the imagined non-contents, of a product, the packaging/labeling will have to be more mass than the product itself. At what point is this an unfair onus on the producer? Equal protection under the law implies that producers should have rights, too.
Slashdot Mirror
This was my very first thought when reading the summary, too.
Oh shit just noticed I got beat by 5 hrs by this guy.
I got the same result searching for Jefferson Memorial. Maybe someone just really likes FDR and is trying to trick people into going there in general.
They're registered in China with fake names and addresses. Which do you think is easier to shut down? Instead, Blizzard seems to try to focus on user education and handing out authenticators to stop the phishing.
No. You can download the WoW client for free without paying for it. If someone won't cough up the $15 a month what the hell makes you think they'll pay $50 for a game box?
And it doesn't have to be a "civil right" to get paid to make it the right thing morally and ethically to pay for a product or service. Plus this is a civil case anyway, there are no guns involved. You're either an idiot or trolling. Or both.
Even if you pretend the EULA/TOS don't exist (which explicitly state that you only have license to use the client with Blizzard's servers), Scapegaming still used WoW's name, branding, characters, graphics, etc. to advertise their servers. That alone is probably enough to justify copyright/trademark infringement just from their webpage. Add in the fact that they made a few million dollars from this infringement, and you have a legit case regardless if you believe people should be allowed to run private servers or not.
Only if they start making money off of their users, and if EA starts caring for some reason.
There are plenty of hardcore raiders who raid because the raid game is fun, and not because they have an inferiority complex. Those ones stick around, but could hardly be considered "casual".
I got the impression they were throwing people a bone because they were unable to release Doom3's source for some reason.
The game was less fun with a flashlight mod, for me. That's all I need to know. Weapon switching was a fun part of the game for me. Reloading and making certain weapons more or less ideal for certain situations was another aspect that became more important later in the game when you had more weapons. I thought that overall the game's combat was pretty good, and for me that's the most important part of an FPS.
For example, I never really understood why people love Half-life 1/2 so much because I don't think its combat is that great.
This is really really easy to disprove on modern hardware. Open 3 instances of Quake 3. Set them all to windowed mode and a small enough resolution to be visible at the same time. Set com_maxfps to 24/40/60 (or whatever values you want) in each window. Enable vsync. Run "demo four" and watch. Even better, call in someone who doesn't normally play video games and ask them to watch without telling them about the settings and ask them which one looks best.
64 bit is perfectly backwards compatible with 32 bit. If there's no advantage to making a 64 bit build, why bother? It's just more QA time for no reason, and possibly more support time later on.
You should read this: http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=776
A noble attempt to bring the discussion back on topic.
It's not like a story not appearing on Digg removes it from the internet. I don't know anyone who only visits a single news aggregation site and doesn't go anywhere else for their information. If Digg's system sucks and is easily abused, people will just stop visiting Digg and visit another website. It seems like people are making a way bigger deal out of this than they should. Probably more people use Digg for retarded shit like cat pictures than for political news, anyway.
I don't think you know what truthiness means.
Did you say Peter File?
You're misunderstanding the issue, then. Say your 2nd window needs 5% of your GPU's total processing power. SC2 requires maybe 65% to render that cut scene at 60 FPS, but can scale up to 100% and just render unseen frames to give you 200 FPS (or whatever). What's going to happen is your desktop is going to get its 5% just fine, and SC2 is going to use the other 95% and render say 190 FPS. The point being, SC2 is only gobbling up the UNUSED clock cycles/cores/RAM/whatever from the GPU to render those extra frames, therefore any other applications should not see any performance loss. This is exactly how a properly written piece of software should behave. You should only *notice* the performance degrade in SC2 or your other apps once your other apps need more than 45% of the GPU (at which point SC2 or the other apps would start dipping under 60 FPS, or whatever the desired level of performance was).
If SC2 did always attempt to use 100% of the GPU regardless of other apps (which it does not) then you would be correct and it would be a problem.
Unfortunately, due to the fact that single player was not tested in beta, no default cap was set for cut scenes, which is apparently the source of the problem now. Either way, see the hundred other replies pointing out that it's a hardware issue being exposed by software, and not technically a software issue.
Not sure what that has to do with this situation. Unless you're talking about some unrelated situation that I haven't heard about.
This SAR value is a completely imagined hazard. Listing it only serves to confuse consumers who do not have a technical understanding of what the value means. It sets a poor precedence that it's OK to force companies to list imagined hazards on their products in addition to real hazards. The list of imagined hazards is infinite. I really don't need my new phone to have a label on it stating that 99.9999% of phones do not contain a deadly cobra.
Did you even look at this graph before posting it?
Think about your statement. If you have to list not only all the real, but additionally all the imagined hazards, or not just the contents, but the imagined non-contents, of a product, the packaging/labeling will have to be more mass than the product itself. At what point is this an unfair onus on the producer? Equal protection under the law implies that producers should have rights, too.
That doesn't look anything like the art in Transport Tycoon. Stop trolling.
Let me get you a Kleenex to wipe away your tears.
(Hint: It's a joke about using brand names for generic objects.)